Do Americans have the freedom to use such expressions publicly? We had a Russian anti-semitic site based in this country which used that and other phrases. It was reported to the authorities (the Human Rights Commission) who made the decision that its intent was to foment hatred between religious groups. It was shut down by the Government and the website owners were taken to court and received a considerable fine. More than likely both you and [name removed for privacy] would be facing legal action if you were resident in New Zealand or another British Commonwealth country. Butr I imagine you have greater freedom on these matters in the States?

Jesus wasn't just one of Todays Jews. Since Todays Jews are just Faux Jews who are really Khazar Turks

You're playing word games. The fact IS, Jesus most certainly was a Jew. As for your anti-semitic remarks, I'm a little surprised you have not been cautioned about this. As Christians we are not about hate but rather love. Hatred (for ANY people) is of Satan not of the Lord.

Christ most certainly was not "Jewish" in the sense meant by modern Jewish spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, so-called "Orthodox Jews", for these spiritual descendants, by rejecting Christ, are not Israel: and neither were those Pharisees who'd done the same. Neither the Jews who wrote down the oral law of those Christomachist (Christ-Fighting) Pharisees in the normative Jewish work known as the Talmud (completed c. 500 A.D.), which places Christ in hell, in boiling excrement and semen (GITTIN 57a) nor the "mystical" branch of those Pharisees (a member of which was the 13th century Moses de Leon, who wrote the ZOHAR [part of Kabbalah], passing it off as the work of the 2nd century A.D. Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai) which places Him on a dung heap filled with worms, with Mohammad and dead dogs and dead donkeys (ZOHAR III, 282a) have anything to do with Jesus Christ: they WANT nothing to do with Him. They are not His; He is not theirs. The Jews who composed these normative works of Judaism completely perverted the revelation of God, in order to exult in their own demonic traditions, which they picked up during their exile in Babylon (which did not end in the late 6th century B.C. [relatively few of the children of Israel returned to Jerusalem with Ezra and Nehemiah: most remained in Babylon] but lasted until the Moslems expelled them from the region in the 11th century A.D.), and to identify the Lord Jesus Christ with them is to be guilty of anachronism at best, and at worst, is a subversion of the economy of the Lord, He Who taught believers that all Judaeans, all the tribe of Judah, all inhabitants of Judah, ALL who rejected Him were "this generation," a phrase which in Greek (n autn genea) means those who share traits, especially negative traits, in this case the sin of having rejected Him. Those Judaeans who cut themselves off from Christ perpetuated a religion which defines itself in opposition to Him and His Church.

This religion is now called "Judaism," which is discontinuous with the revelation God gave Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and King David, since that revelation IS ABOUT CHRIST: this is a fact of salvation history. Judaism and its Jews, however, not only reject Christ but perversely excoriate Him: this is a fact of damnation history. The religion of present-day Jews (the synagogue of satan) has nothing to do with what the Lord Who is Yahweh revealed to Old Israel in the Old Testament, a revelation that, properly understood---that is, according to the mind of the Church---is Christian, for it was CHRIST Who is revealing Himself to Old Israel: "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me" (JOHN 5:46). "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (LUKE 24:44). "The words of Moses are the words of Christ" (Saint Irenaios of Lyons, AGAINST HERESIES, Book IV, Chapter 2). Find someone today who identifies himself as an "Orthodox" Jew and ask him if he believes that Christ is Yahweh (when you see the Greek words "o wv" in the nimbus that surrounds Christ's head in ikons, you are beholding the Church's teaching that Christ is “He Who Is”, Yahweh, "the God of the Old Testament," Who is actually the God of both the Old and the New) or if he believes the teaching of Saint Irenaios. No "real" Jew believes that the Lord Jesus Christ was a "real" Jew. Indeed, a "real" Jew believes that Christ perverted Judaism, that He was an apostate Jew.

"Jewish" means accepting the synagogue's view of Christ---a false prophet, a deceiver who led Israel astray: therefore this term cannot honestly be retrojected into the Old Testament, since the Old Testament righteous were responding not to proto-Talmudists but to the pre-incarnate Christ. To call the Old Testament righteous men and women "Jewish" is to ahistorically assert that they were proto-Jews, spiritual ancestors of those who now inhabit today's synagogues. But this is not what the Lord Jesus Christ taught. He says to those Pharisees (spiritual fathers of modern "Orthodox" Jews) who were rejecting Him by claiming that only Abraham was their father that "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see MY DAY" (JOHN 8:56). Again, all the Old Testament righteous were responding to the pre-incarnate Christ, Who in the Spirit reveals the Father.

Exactly they broke the convenant made with God.And yes they are the ones who "claim to be jews but are not" and the "synagogue of Satan".

Actually Jews can be Orthodox Christian, BUT, I suggest we put back in place these Canons.

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO (THE QUINISEXT COUNCIL)THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO; OFTEN CALLED THE QUINISEXT COUNCIL,A.D. 692.CANON XI.

LET no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI.

Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused. Whoever even calls in Jews as physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed.

VAN ESPEN.

Theodore Balsamon is of opinion that this canon does not forbid the eating of unleavened bread; but that what is intended is the keeping of feasts in a Jewish fashion, or in sacrifices to use unleavened bread (azymes), and this, says Balsamon, on account of the Latins who celebrate their feasts with azymes.

Canon lxix. [i.e., lxx.] of those commonly called Apostolic forbids the observance of festivals with the Jews; and declares it to be unlawful to receive manuscula from them, but by this canon all familiar intercourse with them is forbidden.

While there can be no doubt that in all the Trullan canons there is an undercurrent of hostility to the West, yet in this canon I can see no such spirit, and I think it has been read into it by the greater bitterness of later times. This seems the more certain from the fact that there is nothing new whatever in the provision with respect to the passover bread, vide canons of Laodicea xxxvij. and xxxviij.

Let no one enrolled in the sacerdotal list, or any layman, eat the unleavened wafers manufactured by the Jews, or in any way become familiar with the Jews or call them in case of sickness, or take any medicines from them, or even bathe with them in public bathing beaches or bathhouses. If anyone should attempt to do this, in case he is a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; or, in case he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

The present Canon commands that no person in holy orders and no layman may eat any unleavened wafers sent him by Jews, nor indeed be in any way friendly with Jews, nor when he finds himself ill may he call them and take their remedies,[139] or even bathe with them in baths and bathing places. In case anyone should do this, or any of these things, if he is a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. Read also Ap. cc. VII and LXX.

FROM THE APOSTOLIC CANONS

Canon VII. (VIII.)

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.

Canon LXX.

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN CHALCEDON (THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL)Canon 8 From the Seventh Ecumenical CouncilCANON VIII.

That Hebrews ought not to be received unless they have been converted in sincerity of heart.

SINCE certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and observe other Jewish customs, we decree that such persons be not received to communion, nor to prayers, nor into the Church; but let them be openly Hebrews according to their religion, and let them not bring their children to baptism, nor purchase or possess a slave. But if any of them, out of a sincere heart and in faith, is converted and makes profession with his whole heart, setting at naught their customs and observances, and so that others may be convinced and converted, such an one is to be received and baptized, and his children likewise; and let them be taught to take care to hold aloof from the ordinances of the Hebrews. But if they will not do this, let them in no wise be received.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.

Hebrews must not be received unless they are manifestly converted with sincerity of heart.

HEFELE.

The Greek commentators Balsamon and Zonaras understood the words "nor to baptize their children" to mean, "these seeming Christians may not 'baptize their own children,'' because they only seem to be Christians. But parents were never allowed to baptize their own children, and the true sense of the words in question comes out clearly from the second half of the canon.

+++

8.

Inasmuch as some persons who have been misled by their inferences from the religion of the Jews have seen fit to sneer at Christ our God, while pretending to be Christians, but secretly and clandestinely keeping the Sabbath and doing other Jewish acts, we decree that these persons shall not be admitted to communion, nor to prayer, nor to church, but shall be Jews openly in accordance with their religion; and that neither shall their children be baptized, nor shall they buy or acquire a slave. But if any one of them should be converted as a matter of sincere faith, and confess with all his heart, triumphantly repudiating their customs and affairs, with a view to censure and correction of others, we decree that he shall be accepted and his children shall be baptized, and that the latter shall be persuaded to hold themselves aloof from Jewish peculiarities. If, on the other hand, the case is not thus, they are not to be accepted under any other circumstances whatever.

Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that no one is to join in communion or prayer with, or even admit into church, those Jews who only hypocritically have become Christians and have joined the Orthodox faith, but secretly deny and mock Christ our God, while keeping the Sabbath and other Jewish customs (or, more explicitly, circumcising their sons, deeming anyone unclean that takes hold of a corpse or leper, and other similar vagaries); but, on the contrary, such persons are to be Jews as they were before, and no one shall baptize their children nor let them buy a slave or acquire one by exchange or gift or in any other fashion. But if any Jew should be actually converted in good and guileless faith and with all his heart confess the orthodoxy of Christians, openly disparaging the religion of the Jews, in order that other Jews may be reproved and corrected, we ought to accept such a person, and baptize his children, ordering them persuasively to abstain from Jewish superstitions. But as for those who do not become converted in such a manner, we must not admit them on any account whatever.[274]

Concord.

In agreement with the present Canon ch. 44 of Title I of Book I of the Basilica decrees that if any Jew accused of any crime or owing a debt should on account thereof pretend that he has become willing to be a Christian, he is not to be accepted thus until he has paid his debt or has been acquitted of the crimes of which he has been accused. Likewise ch. 47 of the same Title and Book decrees that no Jew shall have a slave who is a Christian, nor circumcise anyone who is being catechized; neither shall any other heretic have a slave who is a Christian, but the moment he acquires him, the slave shall become free. Read also the Footnote to c. II of the 1st.

sdcheung,

If you copied all the above from other web sites, we need to see links to all the web sites from which you copied the above material. Thank you.

Do Americans have the freedom to use such expressions publicly? We had a Russian anti-semitic site based in this country which used that and other phrases. It was reported to the authorities (the Human Rights Commission) who made the decision that its intent was to foment hatred between religious groups. It was shut down by the Government and the website owners were taken to court and received a considerable fine. More than likely both you and [name removed for privacy] would be facing legal action if you were resident in New Zealand or another British Commonwealth country. Butr I imagine you have greater freedom on these matters in the States?

Thank God Zionists haven't topple free speech here.

You see the dangers of Zionists and there destructive castration of their host state or continent (AUS and Europe)? Disgusting isn't it?

« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 12:27:52 AM by Fr. Anastasios »

Logged

Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.

Denying Jesus was a Jew is a back door way of denying the incarnation. There are all kinds of realities we are faced with as Christians that we may be personally comfortable with. But unlike many other groups, Orthodoxy demands that we conform and not change the religion to conform to our own petty preferences. This sort of antisemitic denial is surely the work of the Devil since it leads one into at least a partial denial of the incarnation...

We had a discussion in another thread about an icon depicting the Theotokos and Child as being Chinese. They were not Chinese. God actually was born to a real mother with a real heritage in a specific ethnic and religious line.....just like the rest of us. Praise be his mercy and condescension to us.

Shakes head.

Those who are too friendly to jews will regret it.

Been burned too many times by them.

But you do realize that this thread is about the Church's teaching on the Jews and not on your personal feelings toward the Jews? Honestly, does anyone really care what you think, seeing that your virulent racism is condemned by the Church?

Denying Jesus was a Jew is a back door way of denying the incarnation. There are all kinds of realities we are faced with as Christians that we may be personally comfortable with. But unlike many other groups, Orthodoxy demands that we conform and not change the religion to conform to our own petty preferences. This sort of antisemitic denial is surely the work of the Devil since it leads one into at least a partial denial of the incarnation...

We had a discussion in another thread about an icon depicting the Theotokos and Child as being Chinese. They were not Chinese. God actually was born to a real mother with a real heritage in a specific ethnic and religious line.....just like the rest of us. Praise be his mercy and condescension to us.

Shakes head.

Those who are too friendly to jews will regret it.

Been burned too many times by them.

But you do realize that this thread is about the Church's teaching on the Jews and not on your personal feelings toward the Jews? Honestly, does anyone really care what you think, seeing that your virulent racism is condemned by the Church?

who said i hated or was racist?

I'm a realistand it's not Hate its Dislike.

Logged

Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.

Denying Jesus was a Jew is a back door way of denying the incarnation. There are all kinds of realities we are faced with as Christians that we may be personally comfortable with. But unlike many other groups, Orthodoxy demands that we conform and not change the religion to conform to our own petty preferences. This sort of antisemitic denial is surely the work of the Devil since it leads one into at least a partial denial of the incarnation...

We had a discussion in another thread about an icon depicting the Theotokos and Child as being Chinese. They were not Chinese. God actually was born to a real mother with a real heritage in a specific ethnic and religious line.....just like the rest of us. Praise be his mercy and condescension to us.

Shakes head.

Those who are too friendly to jews will regret it.

Been burned too many times by them.

But you do realize that this thread is about the Church's teaching on the Jews and not on your personal feelings toward the Jews? Honestly, does anyone really care what you think, seeing that your virulent racism is condemned by the Church?

who said i hated or was racist?

I'm a realist

You can play all the word games you want and call yourself whatever you like, but unless you can prove the reality of all you assert to be reality, your words read as the rantings of a racist and not as the musings of a realist.

Denying Jesus was a Jew is a back door way of denying the incarnation. There are all kinds of realities we are faced with as Christians that we may be personally comfortable with. But unlike many other groups, Orthodoxy demands that we conform and not change the religion to conform to our own petty preferences. This sort of antisemitic denial is surely the work of the Devil since it leads one into at least a partial denial of the incarnation...

We had a discussion in another thread about an icon depicting the Theotokos and Child as being Chinese. They were not Chinese. God actually was born to a real mother with a real heritage in a specific ethnic and religious line.....just like the rest of us. Praise be his mercy and condescension to us.

Shakes head.

Those who are too friendly to jews will regret it.

Been burned too many times by them.

But you do realize that this thread is about the Church's teaching on the Jews and not on your personal feelings toward the Jews? Honestly, does anyone really care what you think, seeing that your virulent racism is condemned by the Church?

who said i hated or was racist?

I'm a realist

You can play all the word games you want and call yourself whatever you like, but unless you can prove the reality of all you assert to be reality, your words read as the rantings of a racist and not as the musings of a realist.

* Anti-Defamation League For Many Years, ADL Has Committed Acts of Libel by Accusing Presidents, Congressmen, and Other of False or Poorly Researched Accusations. As such, this is a terror group that uses propaganda and threat against would-be opponents, and its Jewish friends who own almost all of the presses usually print their news releases without questioning their veracity.

* Simon Wiesenthal Center For Many Years, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has printed outlandish articles and news releases, many of them without proper foundation, pure speculations designed to hurt people, to wound and to destroy them. Now, the Wiesenthal Center asks the entire world to give up freedom of speech on the internet, as it has given it up by allowing Jews to own 90% of the world's NEWS streaming sources including its NEWS gathering agencies, tv stations, tv networks, radio stations, newspapers, movie, and entertainment industries.

* ACLU Founded and managed mostly by Jews of the atheistic branches which represent two-thirds of Jewry, the ACLU concentrates on defying Christian values in court, promoting atheistic value in schools, denial of school prayer, opposition to public aid for children in religious schools, and church-state matters. In addition, it supports social disintegration legislation and court rulings, especially those which allow criminals to go free and return to prey on the public in the name of "private rights" of various sorts. Although the ACLU does some good, mostly it's lawsuits are intrusions into Christian values in a nation that is only 2% Jewish, and its lawsuits are the tiny flea wagging the tail of the giant dog, denying the majority their right to rule in their own nation. The ACLU has never, as far as Jew Watch can confiirm, entered a lawsuit to deny the religious State of Israel the $3-$10 billion per year it receives from the US Government on the same basis of "separation of church and state" that it uses against those whose instituions are Christian.

* Jewish World Federation

« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 02:14:00 PM by sdcheung »

Logged

Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.

I am not mentioning anything about race or genetics, as I consider that irrelevant.

We all come from Adam and Eve, we are the handwork of God.

I am focusing on three main things:

1.- The jewish believes and practices.

2.- The witness of the Church on how jews see and treat christians, and how their religion keeps them away from God and salvation.

3.- How some christian denominations changed and adopted a new attitude and ideology, to fraternize and cooperate with the jews, and totally deny Christ our God and Savior.

One of the most dramatic changes can be observed in the Roman Catholic Church, where jews passed from being the enemies of christianity, to be "their elder brothers", and their false teachings where, among other things, Christ is rejected, denied and insulted, are considered benefical for salvation. In this way, the Roman Catholic Church, denies Christ, and preaches the false doctrine of salvation without Christ, in order "not to offend their elder brothers".

This lead to a series of liturgical reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, such as the removal of prayers for the conversion of the jews, the incorporation of jewish rituals during some religious services such as the giving of blessings by extending their hands and by simply touching people on the head instead of using the sign of the cross, and the incorporation of jewish prayers in some masses, such as the "eveynu shalom alehem" which means "we'll bring you peace" sending the message that by "we" they mean jews, and not Jesus Christ, our God and source of true peace.

This actions go against the teachings of the Church in which it's clearly stated that there is no salvation without Christ, that He is the door, the Prince of peace, the Saviour, and whomsoever denies Him, denies also the Father, do not believe in God, and whomever denies the Saviour will not be saved. The Church continues to pray that jews repent and accept the One True God, the messiah, Jesus Christ, the only saviour.

I think Faith and dogmas (teachings) of the Church must be the core of our discussion.

Mike, What do you see as racism? Where do you see hatred?

CALLING ALL OF OUR CATHOLIC POSTERS:

Is the above true of your church?

While not Catholic anymore, I feel qualified enough to answer this question. I'll take this point by point via the quote feature of this forum:

Quote

This lead to a series of liturgical reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, such as the removal of prayers for the conversion of the jews,

Sorry, this is entirely untrue. While it is true that the language of the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews is somewhat "softened", the Church still prays for the conversion of the Jewish people. This is the current (1973) ICEL translation that is present in the so-called "Ordinary form" of the Good Friday service:

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says:) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen

In 2008, Pope Benedict revised the prayer used in the so-called "extraordinary form" (aka "The Latin Mass") of the service which reads:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen

The Roman Catholic Church still most definitely prays for the conversion of the Jews or otherwise there wouldn't be the annual brouhaha over these prayers by various, often secular, Jewish groups.

Quote

the incorporation of jewish rituals during some religious services such as the giving of blessings by extending their hands and by simply touching people on the head instead of using the sign of the cross,

In my 33 years as a devout Catholic, I have never seen a priest give a blessing that did not involve the Sign of the Cross. The one possible exception is when Bishop Connaire laid hands upon my head during my confirmation, but I don't think that's what the OP is talking about in this case.

Quote

and the incorporation of jewish prayers in some masses, such as the "eveynu shalom alehem" which means "we'll bring you peace" sending the message that by "we" they mean jews, and not Jesus Christ, our God and source of true peace.

I can't seem to find any use of so called "Jewish prayers" in any of the propers in any missal I've looked at for this. The OP needs to either put up or shut up, so to speak. Just saying something doesn't make it true. It's entirely possible that a priest may have used this particular prayer at some Mass somewhere, but he was doing it of his own accord and certainly not doing it from the liturgical books.

With that, I believe I'm leaving this thread. This entire conversation leaves a proverbial bad taste in my mouth.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

But you do realize that this thread is about the Church's teaching on the Jews and not on your personal feelings toward the Jews?

sdcheung,

Let me reiterate the above, since you don't seem to understand what I just said. This thread is about the Church's teaching on the Jews, not about your personal anti-Semitism. So either return to the topic of the OP or receive a formal warning for hijacking this thread. If you have a problem with this, take it up with me in a private message.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The Roman Catholic Church has adopted the mistaken notion of "judeo-christianity" in which jews are considered the first to introduce the basic religious concepts of christianity, this is why they are considered their elder brothers, in a way, their elders, teachers, and leaders. According to the judeo-christian erred doctrine, christianity is a sect of judaism.

This doctrine is opposed to the teachings of the Church, in which christianity is the continuation of the Old Testament Church, the completion of the Law of God and the fulfillment of His promises, while jews are a pernicious sect in constant rebellion against God, and His people, coming from the very same persons who killed the prophets, crucified our God and Lord, and killed His people, as witnessed in the words of Protomartyr Stephan in the Books of Acts, the lives of the Servants of Christ, like Saint James, Apostle and first Bishop of Jerusalem, and history of the Church.

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONSNOSTRA AETATE PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

These passages in particular struck me as quite eloquent - and not at all at odds with Orthodox teaching:

"4. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8 )

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

"Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

The Roman Catholic Church has adopted the mistaken notion of "judeo-christianity" in which jews are considered the first to introduce the basic religious concepts of christianity

Basic religious concepts like there is one God and the Ten Commandments?

Quote

This doctrine is opposed to the teachings of the Church, in which christianity is the continuation of the Old Testament Church

And what is "the Old Testament Church" of not the faithful Jewish people as recorded in the Scriptures? Have you read all of the Old Testament?

Quote

while jews are a pernicious sect in constant rebellion against God, and His people, coming from the very same persons who killed the prophets

The Old Testament prophets were also Jews. Do you know anything real and truthful about any of the branches of Judaism?

Quote

... and killed His people,

And what of the many historically factual cases where people who said they were Christian attacked, abused, injured, looted or killed other Humans just because they were Jewish? Being on the receiving end of horror and pain and death wouldn't convince me that those who were doing the evil were "good guys" or that their religion was from God.

Frankly, I'm not surprised in the least that accusations against the RCC were, in fact, not true at all. They were baseless claims without any support or evidence.

Ebor

« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 11:10:32 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I think you are confusing Catholics' more irenic tone toward Jews (and other non-Catholics) in recent decades with a change of teaching. There is no change of teaching about the absolute centrality of Christ (consult the 2000 instruction Dominus Iesus for a recent example), but it was seen that in light of the many wrongs committed by Christians against Jews over many centuries (and in light of the Holocaust), it was important to unequivocably disavow bigotry against the Jewish people. So it is a change of tone, not a change of teaching.

Now, certainly some Catholics have gone beyond this to act as if the Jews don't need Jesus, but they are working against the Catholic Church, not for her.

And it must be admitted that those who act uncharitably towards Jews in their misguided attempts to convert them are also working against Christianity. Charity, the greatest of all virtues, is the heart of the Gospel, and those who act against it are acting as enemies of the Gospel.

For my soul's sake, this is my last post in this thread and the last time I open it. I actually feel dirty and disgusted, having mucked through some of the posts over the past two days. Lord, have mercy and forgive our unloving spirit.

I still think todays Ashkenazi jews are Khazar Turks who converted to Judaism but still in-authentic jews.and Sephardic jews are Bedouin Arab Tribes who converted to Judaism.

The Sephardim aren't Arabs. The Middle Eastern Jews are known as the Mesrakhim.

A tangent with some light-hearted criticism, but if we are going to make mention of Mizrahim, let alone pronounce their name in an appropriate fashion, please let us learn to avoid offending their ears at all times by not pronouncing the aspirated pharyngeal heth as a uvular fricative khaf; it is one of the uglier phonological traits in the pronunciation systems of Ashkenazi Hebrew and Ashkenazi-influenced Israeli Hebrew (not even one of the uniquely Semitic consonants, like pharyngeals, is pronounced in these systems, leaving us with elocution and vocal delivery that is barely Semitic)--that, and their pronouncing the resh as ghimel. Hence, you get such cringeworthy utterances on news channels like the 'teghogh of Khamas'. I remember Mr. Caviezel in that famous role committing that same mistake. The proper thing to do when one cannot pronounce that letter is to default to a regular 'h', but one ought to avoid 'kh' at all costs.

A tangent with some light-hearted criticism, but if we are going to make mention of Mizrahim, let alone pronounce their name in an appropriate fashion, please let us learn to avoid offending their ears at all times by not pronouncing the aspirated pharyngeal heth as a uvular fricative khaf; it is one of the uglier phonological traits in the pronunciation systems of Ashkenazi Hebrew and Ashkenazi-influenced Israeli Hebrew (not even one of the uniquely Semitic consonants, like pharyngeals, is pronounced in these systems, leaving us with elocution and vocal delivery that is barely Semitic)--that, and their pronouncing the resh as ghimel. Hence, you get such cringeworthy utterances on news channels like the 'teghogh of Khamas'. I remember Mr. Caviezel in that famous role committing that same mistake. The proper thing to do when one cannot pronounce that letter is to default to a regular 'h', but one ought to avoid 'kh' at all costs.

Pardon my pedantry, but what constitutes a "regular h", Sam? Such a sound will vary, depending if the speaker is using Greek Slavic, Scottish/Celtic or English pronunciation.

Good of you in pointing that out; I am recommending here the default English 'h', the glottal fricative, for English speakers (so 'Mizrahim', 'Hasidim', etc.--an Arabic example: 'habibi'). Hebrew has this phoneme also, but separate from heth--the former is still closer to the latter in sound than is the uvular 'kh'. But in the case of speakers from elsewhere it may get trickier, since Slavs and Greeks do not have a native phoneme 'h' to resort to using as a substitute for heth, and so for both an 'h', and a heth, whether pronouncing Hebrew or Arabic, they will use Greek and Slavic 'X'. Hence the image of the stereotypical Greek greeting us with a Keefak Xabibi in Arabic ("How are you, mate?"--actually, more tend to prefer using the feminine Xabibti for some reason). However, these 'X's are velar and palatal, not so guttural and uvular as the ones Ashkenazi Jews use in place of heth.

For those who can read Hebrew, this is how Hebrew really sounds as compared to the Europeanised form with which most have become familiar. In fact, the sound is 'compatible' enough to my ear that the sound of Yemenite Arabic is unmistakeable (the qaaf pronounced as a hard 'g', as it is in some Arab Yemenite dialects). Notice the pronunciation of the emphatic consonants, as well as one of the most important marks of the 'Semitic sound', the 'w' rather than the 'v', but most especially in the case of the conjunction 'and', wa, which in its form and pronunciation is common to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. To hear waaw il-`atif, as we call it, as a va feels very odd, even though the Sephardim have influenced the Mizrahim of Syria into adopting the 'v'.

The Yemenites have a nice tradition in that for each verse they read from the Hebrew Tanakh, then from the Aramaic Targum, and finally from the Arabic Tafseer.

My grandmother and greatgrandmother are rightous gentiles. They hid jews in their house in Paris during the german occupation. I would not be honoring their memory if I did not speak out against the evil of antisemitism displayed in this thread.We must also remember Mother Maria of Paris who my grandmother and greatgrandmother both knew...Mother Maria brought a jewish child to them and said "Be Christ to this child".We are Orthodox Christians we must "be Christ" to the world.

A tangent with some light-hearted criticism, but if we are going to make mention of Mizrahim, let alone pronounce their name in an appropriate fashion, please let us learn to avoid offending their ears at all times by not pronouncing the aspirated pharyngeal heth as a uvular fricative khaf; it is one of the uglier phonological traits in the pronunciation systems of Ashkenazi Hebrew and Ashkenazi-influenced Israeli Hebrew (not even one of the uniquely Semitic consonants, like pharyngeals, is pronounced in these systems, leaving us with elocution and vocal delivery that is barely Semitic)--that, and their pronouncing the resh as ghimel. Hence, you get such cringeworthy utterances on news channels like the 'teghogh of Khamas'. I remember Mr. Caviezel in that famous role committing that same mistake. The proper thing to do when one cannot pronounce that letter is to default to a regular 'h', but one ought to avoid 'kh' at all costs.

Thanks for this. I had never seen Mizrahim written in Hebrew and so I was just going by how I'd seen it written elsewhere. I agree with your opinion of Ashkenazi pronunciation...it's horrible.

I still think todays Ashkenazi jews are Khazar Turks who converted to Judaism but still in-authentic jews.and Sephardic jews are Bedouin Arab Tribes who converted to Judaism.

The Sephardim aren't Arabs. The Middle Eastern Jews are known as the Mesrakhim.

A tangent with some light-hearted criticism, but if we are going to make mention of Mizrahim, let alone pronounce their name in an appropriate fashion, please let us learn to avoid offending their ears at all times by not pronouncing the aspirated pharyngeal heth as a uvular fricative khaf; it is one of the uglier phonological traits in the pronunciation systems of Ashkenazi Hebrew and Ashkenazi-influenced Israeli Hebrew

No, have to blame the Sephardim for the sound of Modern Hebrew. But that's OK, because the Ashkenazi is even worse. OY VEY!

Btw, on the Sephardim (who are Spanish/Portuguese origin) a professor from Turkey once came with his wife to the U of C (he taught in NY). She said she didn't have any problem with language because they lived in a Porto Rican neighborhood, and she spoke her native Ladin (the language spoken by the Sephardim).

« Last Edit: June 17, 2009, 09:54:20 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Interesting. Well this would certainly pose a BIG problem for an Orthodox Christian if it were true, since it implies that the Apostles and Fathers didn't know what they were talking about, that the Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests etc were justified in condeming Christ to death, and that basically we should all convert to Talmudic Judaism. That certainly seems to be where this is going.

I think it's extremely important to remember that 1st century, Second Temple Judaism was NOT a monolithic block of identical beliefs. There were several different schools of thought within Judaism at the time and all had conflicting interpretations of their faith. Josephus goes into some detail about the different "schools" of interpretation in the Second Temple period, but a lot of modern scholarship, drawing on many other sources has made this fact even more clear. There are also conflicting interpretations of who or what the Messiah would be and what his role would be. Some even believed there would be two Messiahs, one spiritual, and one a conquering Messiah. Though this was probably a minority view.

Whether we Christians like it or not, a lot of our theology about the Messiah comes directly from uncanonical sources like Philo of Alexandria, various oral traditions, and non canonical Apocalyptic literature, especially the book of Enoch. None of which are part of any Christian or Jewish canon (with the exception of Enoch in the Ethiopian Church), and the truth is, many Jews of the Second Temple period did not accept these writings even before the birth of Christ, because they believed prophecy had ceased in Israel. So if one puts themselves in the shoes of Second Temple Judaism, and the Sanhedrin, it is somewhat understandable when a guy comes along claiming to be "the Son of Man", (imagery drawn right out of what they considered to be un-canonical tradition) that for some people this would be pretty hard to accept. Not to mention, even though there was a concept of a dying Messiah, and a conquering Messiah, the dying Messiah was to die WITH his people, and not "for" his people.

The Sadducees didn't believe in any Messiah, and the Pharisees believed basically in an earthly Messiah, while the Essenes/Qumran sect believed in something closer to Christianity....and even in these 3 main sects, there were various interpretations. The populace at large was probably not really concerned or understood all these different theological schools, but just did their best to be "good Jews".

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" issue. The Church fathers most certainly knew what they were talking about, but so did the Talmudic Rabbis. Remember, Rabbinic Judaism descended from the Pharisees, all the other "Judaisms" ceased to exist after the Temple was destroyed, with the exception of the Jesus movement.

Quote

If that thought scares you, maybe you should treat the Rabbinical arguments with more skepticism. In particular, you need to question the underlying assumptions of Pharisaic/Talmudic reasoning. The patristic understanding of the rabbinical view is that the Jews see the redemption of Israel as an event to take place in this (fallen) world. The Church, on the other hand, has a more spiritual understanding; the redemption of Israel in fact takes place outside of this world, in the world to come. Read the passion accounts in the Gospels again, with commentaries like those of St Theophylact. The Jews were finally convinced Christ was NOT the Messiah when he willingly accepted death on the Cross. Their minds were limited to this world only, and so bodily death brought an end to their hopes.

Yes, but it brought an end to their hopes because the way they understood the Messianic prophecies were not spiritual. Or at least that was one interpretation, and probably the main interpretation at the time of Christ.

That's why the early Church believed Jesus would come back within their lifetime and "restore the Kingdom to Israel"....as the Apostles ask Jesus moments before His Ascension. Even they still didn't "get it". Even St. Paul strongly implies Christ's return was to happen any day. Indeed, Christianity's understanding of itself was immediate, but I think it's not right to say:

Quote

This is why we treat the rabbinical arguments with contempt, since they reveal a carnal, rather than a spiritual mindset.

You speak as though we, are oh, so much better than "the Jews" because our minds are on "higher things". Have you not read St. Paul where he admonishes us not to boast, because while yes, some Jews were cut off from the tree so that we could be grafted on, God can just as easily cut us off from the tree, in order to graft the Jews back on in our place?

It's dangerous to use the same type of polemic phrases the Church fathers used because one, we're not saints or Church fathers, and two, that was a different time with different rules of argument based in a much older school of oratory and debate. That's why I don't believe St. John Chrysostom was flat out anti-semetic because debate, and argument was of a different "flavor" back then, and yet, if a Church theologian were to come out TODAY and speak with the same phrases St John Chrysostom did, I would be disgusted and cry foul. Today when people say things like "the Rabbis were thinking carnally and on "worldly" things, while we Christians think spriitually" it gives a tone of superiority. And sorry, but we're not superior.

Quote

You can't really argue against them, since they won't understand until they change their mindset. Christ doesn't just fulfill the prophecies in the sense of ticking off boxes on some checklist, but in a holistic sense of fulfilling the entire spirit behind the law and the prophets.

And no one can convince you to see the Rabbinic argument until you try and understand their mindset. It swings both ways.

Quote

Still if you want to see an example of a Christian attempt to argue against the rabbis, you can start with St Justin's dialog with Trypho one of the earliest anti-Judaic polemics. It should at least give you some ideas about how to think about this issue.

Good suggestion. And yet, some of Trypho's arguments are pretty much in line with the Old Testament as well. So again, arguments swing both ways.

I think the important thing is to remember just how "Jewish" early Christianity actually was, and how it wasn't invented by a bunch of gentile anti-jewish pagans....this is one of the things that always helps me in understanding this. And the "Jew vs Christian" approach never helps me for some reason. But to each his/her own I suppose.

I guess I should have read the whole thread before posting...........EEEK!!!!!!!

For all the posters who "dislike" Jews, let me say, that as someone who has been a Christian for many years, BUT as someone who may have Jewish ancestry (my grandmother may have been Jewish, we're not sure) I'm quite disturbed by all this. Forget for a moment that I could possibly have Jewish lineage, as I didn't even know this until a year ago. I've always found Christian anti-semitism absurd. Like it or not, Jesus was a Jew. End of discussion. You follow, and WORSHIP a Jew. (and since we're not Nestorians, that statement is theologically accurate)

If anyone has a problem with that, then it's your problem, not the Jews, not anyone elses, yours! My entire life I've seen people who "dislike" Jews, and I just do NOT "get it". They are people, like anyone else. I also don't get people not liking Native Americans, African Americans, Mexicans, Whites, Irish (I'm half Irish) and so and and so forth. I just do not get it.

And the absurdity of absurdities is to claim to be a Christian (worshipping a Jew) and at the same time "disliking" Jews. Yes there is some language in the Gospels, and Revelation that confuses and leads some people to use the same language. I say, when YOU write a Gospel, and become a Church father and a saint, then you too can use that sort of language and tone. Until then, please stop.

I'm an anti-Zionist as well. I do not like the nation-state of Israel, but that's a secular government, and not the Jewish people. It's funny, that as someone who has at least been a nominal Christian my whole life, every time I see these sorts of discussion/debates and comments about "The Jews", it always causes me to take pause and question my own faith. I wonder, if indeed because of this underlying anti-Jewish undertone that seems to penetrate most societies on earth, if there isn't some legitimacy to the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. I mean, why else would one single people on earth be so despised by almost every culture on earth, if they weren't in fact "the chosen people", or the suffering servant? Yes, other ethnic groups have been despised in history, but none are universally despised by the entire planet except the Jews. Is this not therefore some "proof" of their divine calling? (again this is what I think, it's not really a question I'm asking to anyone here)

These are the thoughts that go through my mind when I see stuff like this. It doesn't make me want to be more Christian, it makes me want to be less Christian. (or at least less a part of "Churchianity")

What ever one's purpose is in proclaiming their dislike of Jews, and I do not pretend to know, but it only destroys people's faith. Whether it's someone like me, who then questions things in my mind, (not so much disproving Christianity, as it does give credence to Judaism, which in turn, makes me question Christianity).....or whether it's someone not religious at all, but perhaps seeking and then they see this and go "oh geez, those people are nuts".....and so they end up never coming to Christ. It's true, we shouldn't judge Christianity on it's followers, but on the other hand, I think that has been used as a cop-out by us Christians and the Church for far too long. Jesus DID say, by their fruits you will know them. That is, people will know Christ by OUR actions....and if our actions are un Christian, then people will not know Christ.

And a good introductory book is titled, "In the Shadow of the Temple" by Oskar Skarsaune

Excellent link.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My grandmother and greatgrandmother are rightous gentiles. They hid jews in their house in Paris during the german occupation. I would not be honoring their memory if I did not speak out against the evil of antisemitism displayed in this thread.We must also remember Mother Maria of Paris who my grandmother and greatgrandmother both knew...Mother Maria brought a jewish child to them and said "Be Christ to this child".We are Orthodox Christians we must "be Christ" to the world.

The last I knew, Madeleine Albright was Episcopalian. Her parents had converted to RC before they left Czechoslovakia. The lady became Episcopalian later in life and said that she didn't know for some time that she had Jewish ancestry. So her faith is Christian.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis